Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rights of refugees
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rights of refugees
The Decisions of the House of Lords in the Case of R vs. Special Adjudicator
To what extent do the House of Lords' decisions in R v Special
Adjudicator ex parte Ullah and Do (2004) and in R (Razgar) v SSHD
(2004) advance the interest of those seeking to rely on the Human
Rights Act 1998 in order to avoid removal from the United Kingdom?
This essay will examine the decisions of the House of Lords in the
case of R v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah and Do[1] and in
R (Razgar) v SSHD[2] in relation to the rights of the refugees and
asylum seekers to rely on the Human Rights Act 1989 in order to avoid
removal from the United Kingdom. The first part of this essay will
outline the decisions of the House of Lords in those two cases. The
second part of this essay will analyse the decisions vis-à-vis the
human rights law.
According to Lord Bingham, the primary issue in exparte Ullah and Do
is whether any article of the European Convention on Human Rights
other than article 3 could be engaged in relation to a removal of an
individual from the United Kingdom where the anticipated treatment in
the receiving state will be in breach of the requirements of the
Convention, but such treatment does not meet the minimum requirements
of article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 concerns about protection
against torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment.
In this case, Mr. Ullah is a citizen of Pakistan and an active member
of the Ahmadhiya faith. He arrived in this country from Karachi in
January 2001 and applied for asylum, claiming to have a well-founded
fear of persecution in Pakistan as a result of his religious beliefs.
The Secr...
... middle of paper ...
... [3] [2004] UKHL 26
[4] Communication No 692/1996
[5] [2004] UKHL 26, at para 23.
[6] Ibid, para 88
[7] ibid para 89
[8] [2002] UKHL 36 (17 October 2002)
[9] at para 14
[10] at para 34
[11] David Rhys Jones; Sally Verity Smith, Medical Evidence in Asylum
and Human Rights Appeals, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REFUGEE LAW, July
2004, IJRL 2004.16(381)
[12] [2003] EWCA Civ 840, 19 June 2003,
[13] David Rhys Jones; Sally Verity Smith, Medical Evidence in Asylum
and Human Rights Appeals, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REFUGEE LAW, July
2004, IJRL 2004.16(381)
[14] ibid
[15] [2003] UKIAT00017 (1 July 2003).
[16] Courts to take account of human rights violations in
asylum-seekers country of origin,
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/press/press-releases-2004/ullah-asylum.shtml
The “writ of Henry I on local courts” is an administrative command issued around 1108 by Henry I, King of England during the Anglo-Norman period from 1100 till 1135. Henry addresses the writ to two individuals specifically in the country of Worcestershire, Samson and Urse of Abbetot, as well as to the barons of Worcestershire generally. Samson and Urse both held titles of prestige and power in Worcestershire County as the bishop and sheriff respectively at the time. The writ generally concerns the court systems, both royal and local, and more specifically delineates the jurisdictional spheres to be enjoyed by the particular courts concerning land disputes. Technically, the writ alludes to four distinct courts: the King’s Court, the Lord’s Court, and the County (or Shire) Court and the Hundred Court. Moreover, it refers to two types of people within Anglo-Norman society: the barons, or lords, and the vassals, or those who held the lands of, and at the pleasures of, the barons.
In the case, R. v. Hibbert , the appellant is Lawrence Hibbert and the respondent is Her Majesty, the Queen. Although there are multiple legal issues outlined in this case, the legal issue that is of concern is focused on the mens rea of party liability under s. 21 , and the meaning behind the phrase “for the purpose of aiding”. This case is significant due to the fact it highlights the interpretations of particular terms, which ultimately lead to a new trial.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
I, Sam Grace Saji, will be ruling on the validity of the law and legal proceedings in Clearwater v. the Queen. During the proceedings, the appellant raised several Charter considerations: s. 2(b)(c)(d), s. 7, and s. 9.
all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or may they act by representatives, freely and
The Constitutional Significance of the Decision of the House of Lords ‘This is the most important case to come before the House since I have been a member. ’[1] Constitutional lawyers have called the judges’ verdict on the terror laws one of the most important decisions from Britain’s highest court in 50 years. The 240-paragraph judgment, handed down on 16 December 2004 outlines the opinions of an unprecedented panel of nine law lords, instead of the usual five, because of its constitutional significance. The ratio of the case alone was of extreme importance, concerning the issue over the disproportionate and discriminatory locking up of foreign suspected terrorists without trial. It confirms how the House of Lord’s ensures the rule of law prevails when fundamental rights are questioned.
That is to say that if no Act of parliament or Dl to follow then judges look at the past decision of a similar case to find a solution to the case before them
An issue that has remained debatable since the Jackson litigation was what ought to be the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution: parliamentary sovereignty or the rule of law. This essay sets out to consider the reputedly irreconcilable tension between the two fundamental constitutional principles by analysing the extensive obiter dicta in Jackson and relating it to judicial review which upholds the rule of law. The contention of this essay is that despite the courts' deferential attitude towards the sovereignty of the laws of Parliament, the rule of law may potentially gain dominance and surpass parliamentary sovereignty to become the ultimate controlling factor in the British constitution.
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
The law of Equity in its complex nature has without doubt had a fundamental role in the development of the English legal system. Through recognizing its legal history of doctrines and principles established over centuries, equity has emerged to establish a distinct legal framework, which has subsequently been used to administer justice in relevant times. Since the enactment of the 1873 Judicature act, the prevalence of a parallel system has been recognized, whereby equity has effectively operated along side the common law. Subsequently, under Section 25 of the Judicature Act 1873 it was noted that if conflict were to arise between common law and equity, equity prevails. Proposing the idea that without equity the common law would be an incomplete means of achieving justice, resulting in equity to act as a check and balance upon the inadequacies of the common law.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.
The judge granted a new trial limited to question of damages. The appeal by the defendant was dismissed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court. Special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Full Court was granted to the defendant by the High Court on question whether there was evidence of implied condition or warranty within the meaning of sec 19 (1) or (2) of the sales of Goods Act 1923.The appeal then came on for hearing.
The House of Lords decision in the Daly underpinned one of Lord Bingham’s eight sub rules which refers to the law providing adequate protection for fundamental human rights. It was held the instruction issued by the Secretary of State violated prisoners right to a legal adviser under the seal of legal professional privilege. By holding the Secretary of State had no right to issue such an instruction, the House of Lords gave due regard to the Lord Bingham’s rule of law. A similar notion was present, in Wheeler where it said the club had a basic “constitutional right … to freedom of the person and freedom of speech” which had been interfered with by the council’s decision to ban use of the
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...
In conclusion, English courts rely on legislative intent as a convincing constitutional justification of their judicial review powers. Ultra vires is still an important doctrine as it was practical stated in two important cases; R v. Lord President of the Privy Council, ex parte Page and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Pierson. Furthermore, the Courts also rely on the grounds of review as well as the obligations from the Human Rights Act 1998. According to Lord Woolf “our parliamentary democracy is based on the rule of law. The Courts derive their authority from the rule of law and cannot act in a manner which involves its repudiation.”